Are most Americans crazy or what?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Watch 127 hours. That guy did the same thing repeatedly for a day, trying to snag something he dropped so that he could use it to get free. He eventually got it.

Maybe all fishermen are crazy. They might cast their lines all morning and get only one fish.

Sorry, but repetition doesn't equal crazy.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Christians can properly claim that the world is only 6,000 to 12,000 years old. It might be that time didn't start at the instance of creation but that there was a period when time didn't exist. We can think that a dinosaur died millions of years ago, but that's not proof that it actually died millions of years ago, it's only proof that they lived that long ago by our own understanding of time. They could have died 10,000 years ago after living for millions of years and they would still show up on the carbon counter as having died millions of years ago. There might have been a timeless period of man, which explains how that Adam could have been in Eden for only one day and still produce enough offspring to have the earth fully populated at his expulsion.

It's just a theory.

reply to post by Magnificient


I saw 127 hours, and it was... okay. Anyway; fishing isn't a metaphor for blind repetition, it's hit or miss; you catch some, you don't. Most people would expect to catch a fish, 70% of the time they'd be right. If no one ever caught a fish, yet 10 years later they were still trying with the same bait and tackle, then yes, they'd be crazy.
Can crazy repetitiveness lead to success? Sure. Does it often do more harm than good? Usually.

People vote every 4 years, even after it gets out that voter fraud is rampant, that all of the nominees are owned by mega corps, and even after seeing that Bush is just as bad as Clinton, and Obama as bad as Bush. The system is rigged, yet people still try to get the phillips head screw driver to turn the flat head screw. That's crazy.

Originally posted by Magnificient
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

Christians can properly claim that the world is only 6,000 to 12,000 years old. It might be that time didn't start at the instance of creation but that there was a period when time didn't exist. We can think that a dinosaur died millions of years ago, but that's not proof that it actually died millions of years ago, it's only proof that they lived that long ago by our own understanding of time. They could have died 10,000 years ago after living for millions of years and they would still show up on the carbon counter as having died millions of years ago. There might have been a timeless period of man, which explains how that Adam could have been in Eden for only one day and still produce enough offspring to have the earth fully populated at his expulsion.

It's just a theory.

That's not how it works. RadioCarbon Dating measures decayed radioactive atoms. Something that measures back 60 million years means it died 60 million years ago.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


With an error margin of a few hundred thousand years, of course.

reply to post by Glass


Still not millions, but yeah... basically.

reply to post by Biigs


No i was expecting people to not say anything or stare.

reply to post by Magnificient


I AM CHRISTIAN and i know the full story of evolution and the earth is around 4billion years old the universe is around 14billion years old and there was something before the big bang...

big bang theory is flawed....how the hell can you get fire from then air?

Originally posted by CrazyRaccoon

big bang theory is flawed....how the hell can you get fire from then air?

The same way the sun burns in the vacuum of space. Energy.

Not crazy, just plain stupid...everyone believes what the media puts out to them with TV and News ads, and that becomes their opinion...sad but true.

I tend to do my research on each candidate, I look at what each has said, then go and do research on what they have tried to do about it in the past…btw, each candidate has a history… then I say do I agree or disagree with that context of the message that is put forth at that time?

for example: [Acts of Terrorism] Newt said he wants laws that prevent a city from being blown up (Police State), Ron says he goes after the people who commit the crime of destruction and enact laws that would prevent that type of damage from happening… sorry not getting into the details; (but if you know this chemical, and this other chemical can create a large explosion, you would restrict the sale of those chemicals) Right?

Both are correct it what they are saying, but one gives less freedom then the other. Which do you want? Do you want to be pulled over every time you go to the Farmers Supply Warehouse for products needed to run the farm so the police can verify that what you are carrying is not dangerous to the public? Or would it be better to go get your supplies knowing that you were not sold an amount of product that would be dangerous to the public? The choice is yours… btw, I think Ron Paul point of view outweighs the other.
.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


I agree with your post about voting in general, we vote for evil #1 or evil #2. You could have picked better symbolism.

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


Fire from thin air? Thats not at all what the big bang theory is about. It basically states that the universe began infinitesimally small and then expanded. There was no explosion that you might imagine when you think "big bang". It was not a sudden explosion of matter in space, because before that there was no space.

Since you are a christian, you should know that Genesis 1 tells very much the same story as the big bang theory, albeit in simpler terms:

In the beginning, God (someone or something existing outside our universe) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

And God said "let there be light" (stars formed from matter to produce light).

I could go on but you know the story.

I've been thinking about this one, and for anyone to articulate a logically coherent response to a question as clunky as so against an entire social, cultural, artistic, economic, political, and anything else said to be American... well... to infer the notion that some aspect of it is, what, crazy?

I guess at closer analysis, another word for 'crazy' is 'mad'... and as 'mad' is the most generic term applied to that which cannot be understood, through lack of time, funding, care, or general interest, is like saying 'oh, the evening news is mad?' but why? 'oh, that's 'cause they ran out of time/money/care/general interest in what they're meant to be understanding for our supposed benefit...'

Indeed.

Americans aren't mad. Neither are just a few of them.

This is one of those catch-22 high concept questions, when you think of it, as a supposed answer to a long-standing joke or argument, or cultural cliche, has formed to the point of being the thing put forward,

"Are some American's crazy/mad, or what?"

Therefore, we're predictably meant to say only 'yes' or 'no',

Very like a street-person-with-a-clipboard manner of getting an overview via slanted questionnaires. And as Icke, Jones, and others have articulated greatly on many an occassions, "The Illuminati love statistics; things they see and that make sense (to them)."

Quite.

Most Americans are crazy because they believe they must choose from the two main choices the mass media puts forward, when really, either choice is one for the status quo or worse. We are somehow conditioned to believe that we cannot choose the other ones on the ballot, or it is a "wasted" vote.

You're voting for who you actually WANT to see as President folks...don't let others force you into a choice.

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


Dude, you walk around with politics on your t-shirt, your going to hear someting.

Your like one of those goths who look like vampires and put earrings all over the face and go WHAT? when you look at them.

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


I think most of the world is a bit crazy.. Just in different ways.

I wouldn't say crazy... Just ignorant.